Outline of Promotion Dossier
Instructions for the Outline
The following sections describe the Outline of Promotion Dossier. In each section, list
items in chronological order from past to present.
I. Personal History and Professional Experience
A. Educational Background
Beginning with the baccalaureate degree, provide the name of the institution; degree,
field of study; date of degree.
B. List of Academic Positions since Final Degree
In chronological order from past to present. For each position held, list inclusive
dates, title, and location for each –University of Illinois and elsewhere.
C. Other Professional Employment
Previous and current, in chronological order as above.
D. Honors, Recognitions, and Outstanding Achievements
Fellowships, prizes, etc., in chronological order as above, that indicate national and
international stature in scholarship and engagement appropriate to the rank sought.
E. Invited Lectures and Invited Conference Presentations Since Last Promotion
For candidates for promotion to Professor, a full (career) list of events may be provided
or, in the interest of brevity, a list of only those events since the last promotion may be
provided. Events should be listed in chronological order as above.
F. Offices Held in Professional Societies
G. Editorships of Journals or Other Learned Publications
List in chronological order from past to present.
H. Grants Received
List principal investigator first, co-principal investigators, granting agency, dates of
grant, and dollar amount of grant. For candidates for promotion to Professor, a full
(career) list of grants may be provided or, in the interests of brevity, a list of those grants
received since the last promotion may be provided.
I. Review Panels
For governmental agencies, educational institutions, or other organizations.
II. Publications and Creative Works
When preparing information for the outline given below, please give attention to the following
standards:
•
Within each category, place items in chronological order from past to most recent,
and number each publication.
•
List all authors in the same order as in the original publication (i.e., do not show
multiple authorship as simply “with Professors x, y, and z”).
•
Place a single pound sign (#) before any publication derived from the candidate’s
thesis.
•
Place a single asterisk (*) before any publication that has undergone stringent
editorial review by peers.
•
Place a plus sign (+) before any publication that was invited and carries special
prestige and recognition.
•
The phrase “accepted for publication” should be used only where a written
commitment to publish has been received from a publisher, subject only to final
technical editing. The term should not be used to describe works still in initial
development, even if a contract or invitation to publish has been offered. Works in the
latter category should be described with the phrase “Incomplete work under contract
to…” or comparable wording.
•
Provide inclusive page numbers for publications in journals.
•
List all publications and creative works over the course of the candidate’s career (this
also applies to a candidate for promotion to Full Professor).
•
Reprint of papers are not required for review at the campus level.
Outline
A. Doctoral thesis title
B. Books Authored or Co-Authored (in print or accepted)
C. Books Edited or Co-Edited (in print or accepted)
D. Chapters in Books (in print or accepted)
E. Monographs (in print or accepted)
Items longer than an article, but shorter than a book. Provide inclusive page numbers
for monographs.
F.
Articles in Journals (in print or accepted)
Provide inclusive page numbers for publications in journals.
G. Creative Works (Exhibitions, Commissions, Competitions, Performances, Designs, Art
or Architecture Executed)
H. Patents
I.
Bulletins, Reports, or Conference Proceedings (in print or accepted)
Include only if these items are normally considered an important part of the publication
record of a scholar or artist in this field. List in chronological order from past to
present. Provide inclusive page numbers for bulletins, reports or conference
proceedings.
J.
Abstracts (in print or accepted)
Include only if these items are normally considered an important part of the publication
record of a scholar or artist in this field. List in chronological order from past to
present. Provide inclusive page numbers for abstracts.
K. Book Reviews (in print or accepted)
Include only if these items are normally considered an important part of the publication
record of a scholar or artist in this field. List in chronological order from past to
present. Provide inclusive page numbers for book reviews.
L. Refereed Conference Papers and Presentations
M. Other
Specify type.
III. Resident Instruction
A. Summary of Librarianship and Instruction
1. Descriptive Data: Librarianship
This section, in paragraph form, should summarize your primary responsibilities in
Librarianship and briefly describe your most important accomplishments. This section
should complement the "Statement of Librarianship" by briefly describing your most
significant contributions in Librarianship. The following areas are given for guidance
only. You may construct your own categories as appropriate, e.g. "User services" instead
of reference, user education and faculty liaison. It is expected that no more than three area
will be addressed here.
Collection development: includes materials selection, collection analysis and evaluation,
collection policy statements, replacement policies, weeding policies, acquisitions lists,
development of vendor/publisher relationships, management of approval plans and
blanket orders, management of serials, or other activities related to collection
development.
Preservation: includes selection and assessment of materials for preservation and
replacement activities, disaster planning and security, managing preservation projects,
application of preservation techniques to library materials, preservation training of staff,
working with professional conservators and vendors to implement reformatting
initiatives, or other activities related to preservation.
Bibliographic control: imposing or deriving an organizational structure to provide
access to information resources (in any format) for effective retrieval. Includes: original
cataloging, cataloging with copy, online authority control, maintenance of circulation
systems, preparation of in-house indexes or finding guides to materials.
Reference service: assisting users in the discovery, access, and utilization of information
resources. Includes performance of regularly scheduled reference service, provision of
computer-based services, cooperative reference referral, preparation of guides and
handouts.
User education: creating and providing print or electronic user guides, maps, signs,
tours; class presentations including participation in library-wide programs, preparation of
exhibits highlighting collections or services, provision of aids for using the online
catalog, and other teaching activities provided to students and faculty on campus, as well
as other local and regional organizations.
Faculty liaison: regular contact with faculty and staff, both within the library and
through other campus departments.
Systems activities: software development, implementation and monitoring of online
systems (including online catalog, journal article databases, locally generated online
databases, etc.), development and maintenance of local area and wide area networks and
Web servers, liaison with programmers, statewide systems governance organizations, and
other systems organizations on campus.
Management activities:
a. Personnel: hiring and supervision (staff, librarians, and graduate assistants),
supervision of student workers or volunteers, job-related staff training, workshops or
lectures presented to library faculty.
b. Operations: Strategic planning; statistical reporting; evaluation of service; unit
promotional and development activities; faculty liaison;
c. Budgetary: management of library materials budgets, coordination of acquisition
funds, budgetary reports; management of library operational budgets, requests for
grants and other funding, fiscal accountability, budgetary reports.
2. Descriptive Data: Instruction
Provide information for undergraduate and graduate courses, both on and off campus, since
last promotion. For each semester under review, provide a list of courses taught and the
number of students enrolled in the course.
3. Supervision of Graduate Student Research
•
Please list doctoral and master’s students separately.
•
For each graduate student supervised, provide the student’s name and level, dates work
was supervised, current status, thesis title if completed, and the student’s placement
(example: Jones, Timothy, Ph.D., 1985, “Analysis of Correlation between CEO
Compensation and Return on Investment at Ten Fortune 500 Companies”, now at Arthur
Andersen).
•
List participation on examining committees separately from supervision of a thesis.
•
Describe any other special assignments, such as tutor for honors students, either in
unit or in campus-wide programs.
4. Other Contributions to Instructional Programs
Significant instructional contributions of other sorts, e.g. through development of course
materials used by other instructors, through professional training provided to Graduate
Assistants, and through extensive independent study or informal interactions with students.
B. Evaluation of Librarianship and Instruction
1. Student ICES Course Evaluation Questionnaires
If applicable. This information is available from the Center for Teaching Excellence. It is
most convenient to use the summary table of ICES data available from the Center for
Teaching Excellence (an ICES "Longitudinal Profile"). Unit executive officers, or the
instructor, must request this summary from the Center for Teaching Excellence
(ices@illinois.edu). For those being promoted from associate to full professor, ICES scores
from the last promotion to the present are all that are needed. If the request is from the unit
executive officer, only data previously released to the department will be included. If the
request comes directly from the instructor, all ICES results will be included on the
Longitudinal Profile.
Generally, it has not proven useful to provide selected student comments from ICES forms,
for essentially the same reason that anecdotal comments from other quarters are of limited
value. Review committees have no ability to judge either the relative frequency of
favorable comments or the degree to which they might be offset by unfavorable
commentary.
More information, including sample table is available from p. 28 of Provost
Communication No. 9.
2. Candidate's Report and Self-Review of Activities in the Area of Librarianship
The candidate must provide a personal statement of their philosophy of librarianship,
methods, strengths, problems, goals, and other material in a manner that will present
colleagues with a context for interpreting other evaluative information.
3. Departmental Evaluation of Librarianship
A narrative statement evaluating the candidate's librarianship, including quotes or
excerpts from the peer review committee report and reference letters.
IV. Service (Public Engagement, Professional/ Disciplinary, and University)
All faculty members should have three types of service included in Section IV of the
dossier: public engagement, professional/disciplinary, and University/campus.
PLEASE NOTE: For faculty members whose public engagement activities constitute a
substantial portion of their University-assigned responsibilities and thus public
engagements has been identified as a primary criterion for promotion, the dossier should
follow the guidelines in the Alternative IV. Service for Faculty Members Who Have
Public Engagement as a Primary Criterion for Promotion.
A. Summary of Service
1. Public Engagement
Definition: Public engagement is the application for the public good of the knowledge and
expertise of a faculty or staff member to issues of societal importance. Typically, this
activity is done in collaboration with others both within and outside of the university. The
activity may enrich research and teaching as well as lead to new directions within the
university. Public engagement falls under the service mission of the university.
Summary: Indicate public engagement and outreach activities performed in assisting
agencies, schools, businesses, governmental agencies or other groups and individuals
who benefit from the knowledge, information and services resident within the University
community. To be recognized as public engagement, activities should:
•
Contribute to the public welfare or the common good.
•
Call upon the faculty member’s academic, professional, or creative expertise.
•
Directly address or respond to societal problems, issues, interests or concerns.
2. Service to Disciplinary and Professional Societies or Associations
List and describe service activities that are not included in Section I, Personal History and
Professional Experience.
3. University/ Campus Service
Indicate service on departmental, college, campus and university committees as well
as administrative assignments.
B. Evaluation of Service
Please provide the name of the person who developed the evaluation.
1. Public Engagement
Provide evidence of quality and impact; describe dissemination of the public service work
through publications and adoption by others; if appropriate, illustrate how the public
service activities are integrated with research and/or teaching.
2. Service to Disciplinary and Professional Societies or Associations
Provide evidence of major contributions which affected the societies/ associations
beyond routine committee and officer service; include recognition and honors.
3. University/ Campus Service
Provide evidence of impact of contributions to the department, college, campus or
University.
ALTERNATIVE IV.
SERVICE FOR FACULTY MEMBERS WHO
HAVE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AS A PRIMARY
CRITERION FOR PROMOTION
The executive officer of those faculty members whose public engagement responsibilities
constitute a substantial portion of their University-assigned responsibilities are urged to
refer to A Faculty Guide for Relating Public Service to the Promotion and Tenure Review
Process (2000) for more complete guidelines on the expectations for documenting public
engagement activities. The guide can be found in the attachments to this communication.
A. Summary of Service
1. Public Engagement
If public engagement is the primary criterion for promotion and has been so specified
at the time of appointment, procedures of the same rigor as those used for evaluating
research and teaching should be used for its review. In this case, the candidate must
prepare a statement of public engagement goals and accomplishments following the
guidelines provided below under Item a. Also, a detailed departmental evaluation of the
candidate’s public engagement activities following the guidelines in Item b must be
prepared. Finally, a departmental evaluation of future potential must be prepared
according to the guidelines in Item c.
a. Candidate’s Statement of Public Engagement Goals and Accomplishments
•
The candidate must provide (in three pages or fewer) a statement of public
engagement goals and accomplishments. If the recommendation is for promotion to
associate professor, the statement should include public engagement
accomplishments since appointment as assistant professor (may include work as an
assistant professor at another institution). For recommended promotion from
associate professor to full professor, the statement should include public
engagement accomplishments since the last promotion.
•
The statement should tie together past public engagement accomplishments
and how they relate to future public engagement plans and to
research/teaching duties.
•
The statement should provide evidence that the public engagement activities or
programs have had a significant impact on and been of mutual benefit to Illinois
and to the partner(s). It should also indicate how the activity is to be sustained
over time.
•
The statement should reflect how these activities relate to teaching and research.
b. Departmental Evaluation of Public Engagement Activities
•
Please provide the name of the person who developed the evaluation.
•
This evaluation should be based on peer observation, standardized evaluation
metrics completed by client groups (as appropriate), evaluative interviews with
clients, focus groups of clients convened for the purpose of evaluation, and up to
three letters of evaluation from qualified academic and non-academic authorities
(see the Faculty Handbook for further discussion of possible evaluation
procedures and methods).
•
This portion of the dossier must include independent, verifiable, and specific
evidence of excellence and impact. This evidence may point to: documented
changes in organizational or individual practices in the client/partner
organization; change(s) in human behavior, specific economic benefits, specific
improvements in the human condition and/or organizational practices (e.g.,
health, safety, quality of life, organizational environment, best practices), and/or
specific environmental benefits.
c. Departmental Evaluation of Future Potential
•
Please provide the name of the person who developed the evaluation.
•
Evaluate the candidate’s strategy for developing his or her public engagement
beyond recent accomplishments. Assess, in realistic terms, the probable impact of
the candidate in his or her public engagement activities five years from now.
2. Service to Disciplinary and Professional Societies or Associations
List and describe service activities that are not included in Section I, Personal History
and Professional Experience.
3. University/ Campus Service
Indicate service on departmental, college, campus and university committees as well as
administrative assignments.
B. Evaluation of Disciplinary/Professional and University/Campus Service
Please provide the name of the person who developed the evaluation.
1. Service to Disciplinary and Professional Societies or Associations
Provide evidence of major contributions which affected the societies/associations beyond
routine committee and officer service; include recognition and honors.
2. University/ Campus Service
Provide evidence of impact of contributions to the department, college, campus or
University.
V. Research
A. Candidate’s Statement of Research Goals and Accomplishments
• The candidate must provide (in three pages or less) a statement of research goals and
accomplishments. If the recommendation is for promotion to associate professor, the
statement should focus primarily on research accomplishments since first appointment
as assistant professor (may include work as an assistant professor at another
institution). For recommended promotion from associate professor to professor, the
statement should focus primarily on research accomplishments since the last
promotion.
• The statement should tie together past research and how it relates to future
research plans and to teaching/ service duties.
• If teaching or public engagement is the primary basis for the recommended
promotion, the statement must reflect accomplishments and future plans in teaching
or public engagement and how they relate to the research activity.
B. Departmental Evaluation of Research Accomplishments
• Please provide the name of the individual who developed the evaluation.
• Research should be evaluated (not merely described) with emphasis on at least
two publications or creative works.
•
The evaluation should address the dimensions of quality of execution,
significance of topic, and impact on the field.
C. Departmental Evaluation of Future Potential
•
Please provide the name of the individual who developed the evaluation.
•
Evaluate the candidate’s strategy for developing his or her research beyond
recent accomplishments.
•
Assess, in realistic terms, the probable standing of the candidate in his or her field
five years from now.
VI. External Evaluations
A. Sample Letter(s) to External Evaluators
Include a copy of the letter (or letters, if different versions) used to solicit these
outside evaluations. As the letter is composed, please attend to the following
points:
•
Be sure the letter is neutral in tone.
•
Indicate the rank to which the candidate is being promoted and if the promotion
would include the awarding of indefinite tenure.
•
Ask explicitly for the evaluator to describe the basis for his/her knowledge of
the candidate and the candidate’s work.
•
Include the following required language to request from the evaluator the
names of additional people who can speak authoritatively about the work of the
candidate.
“The Provost of our campus requests that you provide, in addition to your own
comments about this case, the names of two or three other authorities who might be
consulted about it.”
•
Use the following required language to indicate that the referee’s response will
be protected as confidential:
“The policy of the University of Illinois is to hold in confidence all letters of
evaluation from persons outside the institution. Only the committees and
administrative officers directly responsible for the decision of concern here will have
access to your letter. It will not be provided to the person on whom you comment
unless we are compelled by law to do so.”
•
Use the following required language to indicate that the evaluator should not
consider the faculty member’s length of service during the probationary period.
“Our institution permits one or more extensions (i.e., tenure clock “rollbacks”) during
the pre-tenure probationary period. Our policy states that the criteria for promotion and
tenure at Illinois are the same for all faculty regardless of length of service during
the probationary period.”
B. Qualifications of the External Evaluators
•
On one page, list the names, addresses, and affiliations of all scholars or
professional specialists outside the University of Illinois from whom you have
solicited letters of evaluation.
•
A majority of the external evaluations must come from the department’s, rather
than the candidate’s, nominations. These provisions suggest, in combination, that the
unit request four to eight names from the candidate, that it solicit opinions from no
more than two or three of the candidate’s choices, and that it obtain a slightly larger
number of opinions from others.
•
In order to distinguish those referees chosen by the candidate from those chosen by
the department, please add after the referee’s name either “(chosen by the
candidate)” or “(chosen by the department).”
•
Provide a brief description of the qualifications of each outside referee (i.e.,
rank, position, and credentials.)
•
The outside evaluators should be chosen from institutions the department might
legitimately identify as peer institutions for other purposes such as salary
comparisons. If the evaluator is not from such a peer institution, please explain in the
description of the evaluator why the choice was made.
•
Include a statement of how the referee knows the candidate and his/her work if this is
not obvious from the evaluator’s letter.
•
If a letter of evaluation was not received from someone who was asked to provide
one, please explain why there was no response.
C. External Letters
•
Letters from each outside reviewer should be numbered inclusively within
the recommendation packet.
•
All letters received in response to the unit’s request for external evaluation must
be included.
•
Date-stamped upon receipt.
VII.
Special Comments by the Unit Executive Officer
Please discuss any outstanding characteristics of the staff member not covered in the
preceding sections. The unit executive officer’s comments should always be the last item in
the dossier (with the exception of addenda included at subsequent steps in the process).
The unit executive officer is strongly encouraged to address any negative aspects of the
candidate’s record or the outside letters and explain why these aspects should not be decisive
in the case in question.
If tenure is to be granted with promotion, the unit executive officer should indicate
succinctly why the department will be strengthened by an indefinite tenure commitment and
how the best interests of the University will be served.
The unit executive officer should include in his/her comments any new evidence that has led
to the submission of a promotion recommendation that had been denied from the previous
year.
As the “Special Comments by the Unit Executive Officer” addresses and clarifies information
within the promotion dossier, as well as information in the letters of reference, it is important
that this section be placed at the end of the packet. Please be sure the executive officer’s
comments are the last item in the promotion packet, unless there is a need for Special
Comments by the Dean (see below).
VIII. Special Comments by the Dean (only when needed)
When a case is forwarded for campus review after significant questions were raised during its
review at the college or school level, or by external evaluators, or it received a split vote, it is
imperative
that the Dean of the submitting unit provide commentary on the case for successive reviewers.
This commentary should explain the merits of the case and address forthrightly its strengths
and weaknesses. To formulate this commentary, the dean may need to be present during the
committee’s discussion of the merits of the case. Special Comments from the Dean are needed
only when there are significant questions raised at the college/school level and/or there is a
split vote by the college- level review committee.
Assistance
For questions about promotion and tenure criteria, policy or procedures please call the Office of
the Provost (333-6677).
Attachments
•
•
•
•
•
Checklist for Transmittal of Recommendation
Recommendation for Promotion and Tenure (Cover Sheet and Outline)
A Faculty Guide for Relating Public Service to the Promotion and Tenure Review
Process
Senate Promotion and Tenure Information Questionnaire
Sample Letter to External Evaluator
Outline of Promotion Dossier [rev. for librarianship]
from Provost Comm. 9; [mod. September 20, 2013]
http://www.provost.illinois.edu/communication/09/Communication_No.9.pdf
January 3, 2014